2014_06_04_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, June 4, 2014 Page 15 Code would be triggered by licensing procedures in place, and if no major improvements 714 were planned at this time and the business intended to move into the building as is, those 715 conditions may not be required. 716 Regarding landscaping in Section 1011.02.C., Ms. McCormick addressed noise 717 restrictions and environmental conditions, which apparently did not apply to off-street 718 parking and loading. Ms. McCormick noted the two loading docks located in the rear of 719 the building, and based on her measurements, the space between the current chain link 720 fence and rear residential property, also having a chain link fence, was 55’ from the edge 721 of the parking lot to the rear yards, with no trees in the entire strip at this time. Ms. 722 McCormick opined that there was no significant space intended as a noise buffer, and as 723 evidenced with the Advanced Circuits operation in the building to the east, noise had 724 become a significant issue. While recognizing that Aramark traffic generation had been 725 significant in the past, along with Advanced Circuit operations, Ms. McCormick noted that 726 the elevations became higher the further north, and then elevation dropped at Oasis Park 727 and the Twin Homes properties immediately to the north, and beyond that single-family 728 homes. Given neighborhood involvement across Oasis Park, Ms. McCormick noted that 729 noise studies had been done in the past, prompting a wooden fence to the north of the 730 adjoining property on the east. 731 Ms. McCormick asked that the Planning Commission consider conditioning this approval 732 on installation of a barrier fence in place, along with landscaping, as per Section 733 1011.03.A., 3.d., and requested that a landscaping plan be provided and in Section e. 734 addressing the exception if the land remained undisturbed and in its natural state, it could 735 then be waived. However, Ms. McCormick opined that there was enough ambiguity 736 perceived by her and the neighbors that noise is a major concern, and once this is 737 passed, the opportunity for public input became non-existent; and if they’re not required 738 to provide a landscape plan or provide screening at this time, there was no triggering 739 factor or process in place to require them to do so at that time, and the neighbors would 740 have no opportunity to be heard on this issue at that time. 741 Ms. McCormick requested that a landscaping plan be submitted for approval and activity 742 limited to current production, and if there was a future expansion, it not exceed the 743 current noise level, with no large scale sheetmetal fabrication done due to that noise 744 factor. Ms. McCormick reiterated that this is the only opportunity to make this request; 745 and further requested that the loading dock doors remain closed during operations. 746 At the request of Member Cunningham as to paid for the construction of the fence behind 747 and bordering Oasis Park and the 1633 building, triggered by noise complaints, Ms. 748 McCormick opined that it was a joint cost-share of the City and company. 749 From the City’s perspective, Member Cunningham asked staff if the proposal moved 750 forward without any restriction, and subsequent complaints were heard from neighbors, if 751 the City could work with the property owner to install a similar wall. 752 Mr. Paschke clarified that this was not a similar situation with the other and past issue. 753 However, Mr. Paschke advised that the Planning Division looked at the issue two-fold. 754 Mr. Paschke noted that existing guidance and zoning deemed this site non-conforming; 755 and in essence the use as production/processing and light industrial use ceased to exist 756 after vacant for over a year, thus requiring the need for an Interim Use for the proposed 757 use; and looking at that use in a building triggered certain but not all requirements. With 758 the use, Mr. Paschke advised that staff’s desire is to mitigate certain impacts, which 759 would require screening on the site: a wood fence of mixture of fencing and/or 760 landscaping; however, staff would not require landscaping to be part of the use of the 761 site. Mr. Paschke advised that City Code reads that a landscaping plan would be required 762 if soil was turned to develop the site, and City Code could not trigger that requirement 763 unless there was a 50% or more increase in that development. While Mr. Paschke opined 764 that it would be great to get the lot spruced up, he was not sure the City had the ability to 765 require it as part of the IU. From a screening perspective, Mr. Paschke advised that staff 766